If you have "no place to go," come here!

"WHO report highlights violence against women as a ‘global health problem of epidemic proportions’"


Physical or sexual violence is a public health problem that affects more than one third of all women globally, according to a new report released by WHO in partnership with the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the South African Medical Research Council.

The report, Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence, represents the first systematic study of global data on the prevalence of violence against women – both by partners and non-partners. Some 35% of all women will experience either intimate partner or non-partner violence. The study finds that intimate partner violence is the most common type of violence against women, affecting 30% of women worldwide.

The study highlights the need for all sectors to engage in eliminating tolerance for violence against women and better support for women who experience it. New WHO guidelines, launched with the report, aim to help countries improve their health sector’s capacity to respond to violence against women.

Louis CK, "There is no greater threat to women than men:"

No votes yet


Notorious P.A.T.'s picture
Submitted by Notorious P.A.T. on

Is violence worse for women than men, and so much worse that it must be its own campaign? Here in the US the clear majority of victims of violent crime are men, and I doubt it's any different around the world. It isn't women being conscripted to fight in wars in Darfur, after all.

Submitted by cg.eye on

So, the death of conscripts in Darfur is worse than the rape of mothers in Darfur, whose children, due to having no one powerful enough to defend them, get conscripted? Who then learn to rape (WHICH IS A WAR CRIME) as a military tactic? At least death ends suffering. Rape, as part of the panoply of officially-sanctioned violence against women, deliberately perpetuates it.

Isn't the problem the raping heads of armies who destroy the lives of everyone except their protected wives and children -- and that protection provisional on whether said men have a bad day? That trouble goes all the way down the line -- thus having pity on (male) soldiers, but no one else, plays into the general vibe of fascism that lets rapes and assaults against women and children become the normal course of business.

Submitted by lambert on

"Deliberately perpetuates" suffering.

* * *

I had rape in the category of a violent act, like a mugging or a beating, but not in the category of "horrible things that you'll remember for the rest of your life because I'm doing this to you now." Ick. That's a subset of violent acts I don't really have a word for. Do you? (It's almost like a predator marking a territory, if people were territories, which they aren't (except to rentiers (that being what a market segment is)).

Submitted by cg.eye on

In the Utah kidnapping case, Elizabeth Smart has insisted on speaking out about abstinence:

BALTIMORE - Rescued kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart said Wednesday she understands why some human trafficking victims don’t run.

Smart said she "felt so dirty and so filthy" after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn’t run "because of that alone."

The shame neutralized a person who could have organized other mothers, other wives, against war; could have spoken out about crime, generally, in her neighborhood; could have left an abusive relationship, save for that man who makes sure she feels dirty every day of her life. Pissing on a fire hydrant has more dignity for the hydrant; it never felt like anything else.

As for my comment above, I should be praised for my self-restraint, because I truly could have gone off, and pointed out:

A) Boys get raped. Soldiers get raped, children get raped, Feel better, those concerned about masculine suffering, about the universality of men using sexual organs as weapons?

B) Boys forced to have sex with women forced into prostitution, or get tutored in raping anyone in their way, have been sexually assaulted. Someone told them to fuck, or they or a loved one would die.

C) As with the epidemic of prison-style sexual initiations now performed by high school sports teams (one more goddamn thing Colorado's now known for, as if the shadow of Columbine on teenage American machismo has finally been purged) situationally-homosexual behavior, ordered by coaches and warlords, reinforces hatred of all who are weak -- boys, women, queers who have sex without raping their partners.

D) Rapists who want to assault women, could simply beat them. *Those* charges stick, get better prosecutions in court, and more severe convictions. Rape, however, places the power of the state in the hand of the rapist -- the better he plays the game of not leaving marks, of taking victims ambiguously (i.e., only the victim is willing to be a witness), the more the state will join him in punishing the victim for not dying and for remembering.

E) The way convictions go in the US, let alone in active war zones, the only thing the victim will receive are the bodily scars and memories. Raped people lose their families, through shunning and further threats by occupying forces, thus making them even more vulnerable to coerced sex and intimate partner violence.

F) The only reason WHO can say this now, instead of making vague noises, as in years' past? The longer wars go on, the more normalized sexual violence becomes, as an artifact of soldiers' behavior and as a tool of sectarian revenge. The cycles don't end, unless we universally punish those who use assaults on non-combatants as a legitimate wartime practice. That should cover rape, right?